From the 1970’s through much of the Clinton years, affordable housing advocates made little progress maintaining the federal government’s 1949 commitment to provide safe and affordable housing “for all Americans.” But starting in the late 1990’s, activists made gains by reframing the “housing crisis” from a problem identified with the very poor, to one that also impacted “working families.” In the go-go days of the real estate bubble, this re-branding won the broadest political support for affordable housing had seen since the 1960’s. But then came the foreclosure crisis and credit crunch. This component of the “housing crisis” became front-page news and a constant topic on the campaign trail, while homelessness, and the millions of families living in unaffordable and/or unhealthy rental housing, was ignored. When middle-class people are being threatened with the loss of their homes, the problems of low-income renters are put on the back-burner. This helps explain the surprising defeat of an affordable housing set-aside initiative (Prop B) in progressive San Francisco, and demonstrates why housing activists must re-brand the affordable rental housing crisis to get traction in the current climate.

When one examines public attitudes toward homelessness and the affordable rental housing crisis over the past nearly three decades, a pattern is clear: when the economy is buzzing and good times predominate, public concern over those “left out” of the boom is at its highest. But in down times, like today, focus is on the struggling middle-class homeowner, not on the housing problems of the longstanding ill-housed population.

Tough Times Require Reframing

We just finished a presidential campaign in which the term “housing crisis, presidential campaign” appears 468,000 times when Googled. And yet I could not readily find a single mention of the housing crisis in terms of a shortage of affordable rental housing, or its most public manifestation, homelessness.

Talk to anyone involved with federal housing policy and they will tell you that HUD is a mess. This is a standard result of eight years of Republican rule, with the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Administration’s all doing incalculable damage to both HUD and federal housing programs.

Since Bush took office, activists have won increased housing funding at the state and local level using the politically effective argument that such programs help the working and middle-class. But evidence is emerging that this analysis no longer has as much traction, as politicians and the media redefine the housing crisis to focus on struggling homeowners, not renters.

San Francisco’s Prop B

Ben Malley describes below how some activists interpret Prop B’s defeat. My own take is that the answer goes beyond the common explanations -- Mayor Newsom’s opposition, last-minute anti-B mailers and robo calls, a rising city budget deficit, the measure’s alleged over-targeting of those of very low incomes, and the overall financial meltdown--and reflects a seismic shift in voter attitudes about the nature of what we call our “housing crisis.”

Consider this: I did not talk to a single person prior to Election Day who thought Prop. B would lose. Despite all of the factors noted above, the consensus among both supporters and opponents of the measure was that “San Franciscans will always vote for affordable housing.”

There was ample basis for such confidence. In 2002, a poorly run San Francisco housing bond campaign still got well over 50% of the vote. The 2004 bond got nearly 66%. Eight supervisors put Prop B on the ballot, making it hard to believe that the mom and apple pie housing measure could not get a bare majority.

But Prop B did not even get 48% of the vote, and lost by nearly 16,000 votes.

And San Francisco voters rejected Prop B on a local ballot in which progressive supervisor candidates won all three “swing” races, and in which voters came out in droves to oppose Prop 8 and support Barack Obama.

Potential Next Steps

New Surveys: In the late 1990’s, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition conducted focus groups in suburban areas to come up with a more politically effective message for affordable housing. Locally, Dianne Spaulding of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California has engaged in polling toward a similar goal.

These surveys proved very effective, and contributed to the passage of a National Housing Trust Fund earlier this year. Now a new set of polls and focus groups must proceed to come up with a message that prevents the foreclosure crisis from drowning out the need for more public support for affordable rental housing.

Reframing Attitudes: The Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation has an astonishing number of projects in the pipeline, and has a particularly great track record of producing affordable family units.

What struck me when I got TNDC’s 2007 annual report was that citywide housing advocates seem to focus less on the great things that are being done than on the ever present “need.” This need is said to be both voracious and unlimited, likely leading many voters to figure why bother funding Prop B if little systemic impact will occur.

There is a great need, but creating the impression that the city cannot reduce it is not a great strategy to get increased public support.

We have seen the same phenomenon around homelessness. It is an article of faith among many progressives and conservatives that Mayor Newsom’s “failure” in combating homelessness is evidenced by the numbers currently living in shelters or on the streets.

It has become politically irrelevant that San Francisco has created more permanent housing for homeless single adults than any city in the United States ever has over a five year period. Instead, advocates ignore what has been accomplished and focus on the families or other populations not housed, helping to lead key portions of the electorate to conclude is that homelessness is too intractable problem to justify additional funds.

Housing activists need to follow the lead of school advocates by promoting a message that affirms the successes of the past without implying a lack of ongoing need. High test scores are not attacked out of fear that they will reduce school funding, but instead build public support for more money -- affordable housing can be similarly reframed once advocates feel comfortable acknowledging that public funds have brought real gains.

New Leadership/Coalition Politics

Who are the elected officials at any level of government who speak out on a regular basis about affordable rental housing?

Barney Frank used to be a leading national figure, but he is now focused on foreclosures. Who has replaced him? Who is out there speaking at a state level?

Eight San Francisco supervisors endorsed Prop B, but none engaged in a high-profile public campaign for the measure. Wouldn’t that leadership have proved helpful?

I also think that affordable housing does not involve the diversity of groups that it did in the past decade. Labor, senior, and other groups have their own problems and priorities--by re-branding itself for the Age of Foreclosures, the affordable housing movement could also look at potential new allies and to broaden its base.

These are but a few ideas to start a larger debate. The “working family” paradigm for the affordable rental housing movement can no longer carry the day, and what replaces it is yet to be discovered.